Sunday, October 16, 2011

New Google Dart Logo

Google has released their new programming language with eyes on combating Javascript's dominance of the internet. Whether that will come to fruition or not remains to be seen, but they have released along with it a new logo, which can be analyzed now.

I don't like it that much. I think that the image itself doesn't translate well into black-&-white. I hate the little angled slash on the T. And most critically, I don't think that the logo is iconic enough. It is not an image that I would immediately associate with the language. C++ doesn't have this problem since the language name itself is iconic. Java is a bit more iconic, but not as much, and not surprising, it has a logo. A logo which isn't great, but it has been around for long enough where it doesn't matter.

So I have created my own version of the logo. I wanted it to be bold, strong, iconic, and super-simple. This makes the logo robust and identifiable. The image can be used in any color, and scales well. Google's logo scales down to Favicon-size very well and retains perfect recognizability, but also remains entirely un-iconic. It is simply a smear of colors. I want a logo to be without a doubt associated with a single thing. That means simple and bold.

I kept the dart image oriented upwards. It further communicates uprightness, rigidity, and even being a little bit boring. I could have tilted the logo to the left slightly, which would have added some energy and movement to the logo, but that reduced the impression rigid professionalism.

I used a font with serifs since they present an impression of stability, strength, tradition, and integrity as opposed to the modern air presented by fonts with a san-serif. Truly, the font choice seems a little 1990's computer world. This might seem counter-intuitive for a futuristic technology company, but that very reality I think presents the opportunity to use a brand personality counter to the parent company, relying on the strength of both brands to walk hand-in-hand.

Google is modern, futuristic, playful, and tech-savvy, but as Dart shows, they know when integrity, foundation, and respectability matter. Sometimes, being boring is precisely what's needed.


  1. I clearly don't agree with your statement when you say "being boring is precisely what's needed". That has nothing to do with google. What I see here, comparing the original with yours, is a change from a good logo, professionally made, to a bad, amateurish one. Your logo lacks the strenght, charisma and the modernism of the original. Your symbol is a random, generic and amateurish. If you separate it from the name it's meaning is gone. Your typographic choice is awfull. It looks that you made a logo for a product that belongs in the 19th century. Lack's innovation and the playfulness of google. Besides, the kerning is all wrong.

    1. In my defense, I created the logo in literally twenty minutes. That said, I agree with most of your criticisms of my work, but they apply equally well to the Google version. For example, what playfulness? There is none in the Google typeface. It's just slabs. And none of this matters much, since Dart is dead.

  2. Really, really bad dude. I'm so glad to see someone already did the majority of the obvious critique here.

    Couple of things:

    It's not "a smear of colors", it's the end of a dart. Anyone with any imagination can see that, but it's cleverly just removed enough from the idea to stand alone.

    You said you wanted yours to be "bold, strong, iconic", it is none of those things. It is in fact generic, weak and entirely forgettable. I cannot imagine a way for a mark and logotype to be any more wrong for the Google brand.

    It is clear from this post that you are in the wrong field, and while it's great you have fun with design, I suggest you keep it to yourself for a while, particularly if you think you have outdone longstanding titans.

    It's time to stop.

    1. It is a smear of colors. Yes, it is obviously supposed to be the end of a dart, otherwise known as the fletching. But if you tried to make that black and white, you would end up with problems. I'm of the philosophy that a brand mark should always be convertible to black and white and maintain its identity. The Dart logo doesn't do that.

      And as I said to the previous heckler, I agree. My logo isn't that good. But I did it in twenty minutes. And your criticisms of my playing around logo apply equally well to the Google Dart logo. And longstanding titans? Who the hell are you talking about?

      And I would love to see your designs.